Page 2799 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Auditor-General’s comments strike at the heart of some of our most critical and most precious democratic processes; that is, the capacity of the parliament and, through it, the community to hold the executive accountable for its activities and for the financial transactions that it undertakes. It is the independent Auditor-General, the unique Office of the Auditor-General, which contributes substantially to this capacity.
What is worrying for the ACT Auditor-General is that the effective reduction in her budget has already forced the Auditor-General to consider reducing her staff. Moreover, the future looks even worse. Ms Tu Pham explained:
To return to the balanced budget in 2009-10 and forward years, we need to cut around $200,000 off our budget. For $200,000, we are looking at cutting at least one senior staff or two staff. The reduced funding means that we will not be able to employ people from outside as we have in the past.
The Stanhope-Gallagher government has placed the ACT Auditor-General in a position of having to reduce staff so that the office can achieve a balanced budget. How this flies in the face of the credentials of the Chief Minister and the Treasurer in this government! They proclaim openness, they proclaim accountability, they proclaim responsibility. But the reality is that these are just meaningless, hollow words that are used hypocritically and mischievously.
As if the reduction in staffing is not bad enough, it is the consequences of that reduction that will be significant. The reduced capacity of the office could translate to a reduction in one or two performance audits in the coming year. That is a reduction from eight performance audits currently to six or seven under the decreased budget for the office; that is, the Auditor-General will have less resources to devote to that activity which delves into government organisations and processes and seeks efficiencies in the use of resources, in program delivery and in other matters.
It is difficult to imagine a more unsatisfactory situation for a parliament in a democracy such as ours. As the Auditor-General also explained, this reduction in the capacity of her office was occurring at a time when there were increased calls on the Auditor-General to perform performance audits, let alone having the capacity to scrutinise the government’s bigger budget and the government’s increased spending. Ms Pham provided a dramatic insight into the reduction of her resources. She said:
… since 2007, the percentage of funding allocated to our budget, to our appropriation, has declined as a percentage of the total government spending. In 2006-07, the government appropriation to our office was 0.06 per cent of the total government funding. In 2009-10, it will be 0.053 per cent of total government funding. So we are not keeping pace with the government’s increased funding, even though our work and the demand for our work link very closely with the government’s spending and activities.
So, at a time when the overall budget continues to grow and, during the year 2009-10 the budget will grow even more quickly through the addition of various stimulus packages, the resources available to the Auditor-General must keep pace with this growth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .